time once again for the toughen the CV "discussion"

[Preon1]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
One other thing I'd like to point out that is a crack in your foundation, Lazs...B17's never trained to hit moving ships insofar as I know of...we, otoh, practice it continually.  That is to say that they did not have the opportunity to become proficient at hitting a moving target as we do online.  Therefore, regardless if it happened then or not does not necessarily dictate what we do today online.

That's my point exactly.  You've gotta take into account the skill factor.  If a guy in a bomber is so damn good that he can plug a carrier from 20k, then by all means he should be allowed to do so.

Complaining otherwise would be like me whining that this fighter jock badass just sprayed me with heat seeking .50s from 1.2k away.  That would NEVER happen in WWII, but damn if he's just that good.

[Widewing]

Originally posted by Ripsnort
One other thing I'd like to point out that is a crack in your foundation, Lazs...B17's never trained to hit moving ships insofar as I know of...we, otoh, practice it continually.  That is to say that they did not have the opportunity to become proficient at hitting a moving target as we do online.  Therefore, regardless if it happened then or not does not necessarily dictate what we do today online.

Back in the late 1930s, the USAAC was responsible for coastal defense. Bomber crews did train to hit moving ships, at least at that time. On May 12, 1938, two YB-17s flew 800 miles out to sea off of Long Island to intercept the Italian liner Rex. None other than Curtiss LeMay was the navigator. As late as 1944, B-17s were training for and carrying out anti-shipping strikes in the SWPA theater (5th Air Force). With greater practice, they achieved a measure of success, but mostly against merchant shipping rather than well defended warships.



My regards,

Widewing

[lazs2]

sure... I can lose a BB argument rip but... I don't like to do it as much as you do.  

as to us being "better than the real pilots"... I suppose that is true to some extent.   we get a lot more trigger time and.... we don't have that pesky ol "risk our lives" thing going on but....

gameplay or realism..  have it either way or both... it would simply be more realistic and at the same time make for much better gameplay if the CV's lived longer.   Several "realistic" ways to do so have been mentioned/suggested.  

realistic methods causing realistic results and good gameplay.... seems win win to me.   I haven't seen one arguement that makes sense for leaving the CV's so vulnerable.

also... if there were some hot spots around the CV's most of the time I bet it would increase player base and HTC income.   Most "strat" "realism" historical" guys are not at all interested in the latter tho from what I have seen of their suggestions in the past.

lazs

[Ripsnort]

They look alittle low for Norden calibration  Widewing

[Preon1]

Originally posted by lazs2
as to us being "better than the real pilots"... I suppose that is true to some extent.   we get a lot more trigger time and.... we don't have that pesky ol "risk our lives" thing going on but....

lazs

Thanks for compromising some lazs.

I agree that the best furballs occur when CVs manage to creep close to a base.  Ever since I graduated from the Raptors, I've spent 98% of my time in them and I cherish the ones where CVs are involved.

It's true that with 3 or 4 good pilots you WILL kill a CV in one sortie provided nobody has established a high cap (rarely ever happens).  But they should be allowed to kill that CV.

As far as gameplay is concerned, whats wrong with the idea of putting more fleets in the water, or perhaps require that both the CV and battleship are destroyed before a fleet will disappear?

All I see is the possibility that when fleets are made ultra hard, all it will do is discourage those who want to sink the boat and survive.  It will be a skill lost to the game and then every attack on a CV will be a suicide.  ...then again, maybe I'm just sentimental.

[lazs2]

preon... i don't know about "comprimise"... I simply feel that you are correct and am stating it.   I have in the past stated the same views... that we have infinitely more gunnery practice (to explain some of our longer range shots).   same goes for bombing.

now...  I also see no problem (and have stated as such) in having thre cv groups be much larger... the "skill" of the bombers could still be tested without completely stopping all action.  

To make different types of ordinance for land and sea based planes (as widewing notes) would also go a long way in allowing cv operations to continue for a reasonable length of time without penalizing "skill".

regardless...   The CV's are a fun part of the game for a lot of guys and they are being taken out of the game much to easily.   I simply want them to be less vulnerable to complete uslesness.

lazs

[poopster]

I cherish the ones where CVs are involved

They are the best in the arena.

The main thing is CV operations are fun. Fun is the aim of the game. If tweaking is necessary well, give it go.

Widewings suggestion was a good one. Rebuild times to make multiple suicide jabo less potent is another..

All things that make the "game" more enjoyable are worth a try.

Not impossible to take out with coordinated attacks, yet tough enough to last more than ten minutes in a fight zone.

A happy medium in settings just has to be found.